Wow, but for another reason.... We are usually in total agreement!

You opine: "IMO it is all about the ruling, not soo much about the money." IMO, it is exactly the opposite. IMO, if we got a settlement from the J2.5/ARM for a total/aggregate of $200M at this point in time (the figure you mention), with all the research, etc., undoubtedly performed to date by the J2.5/ARM, it would send the loudest possible message to all the other infringers out there. Of course, more money, more better.

Yes, a favorable Markman result would be nice, Summary Judgement in our favor would be nice, but the litigation would remain (in the case of SJ, the damages amount determination would linger) - perhaps for another year. Meanwhile, "first mover" discounted licensees, if any (or would they, the potential licensees, just continue to sit on their hands till litigation is complete?). Tick-tock.... And what if, after the supposed "holy grael", the damages determined were relatrively small (e.g., $50M total/aggregate)? Precedent set. Much smaller future royalties (well, much smaller than I think most of us hope for). Uncertainty hangs. Along with possible future litigation with others.

But a settlement for really big bucks ($200M+), right now, would likely end all future litigation and send the desired message to the world. Our opposition will have conceded and paid dearly, at a point in time where they should have all possible ammunition to assess toward determining risk.

This was the discussion I got into the other day with Ronran where I got pissed off at his response, i.e., my opinion laughable followed by a link to his opinion - excuse me?! Then his suggestion that I "chill" - basically squelching any further debate by me. As an attorney, his position on the matter was understandable - litigation is everything. IMO (business guy), the money is everything, especially after most of the litigation (basis for litigation) cards have already been placed on the table. He also suggested that TPL/T&T, in considering a settlement amount pre-Markman, would be based on perceived risk associated with the Markman. I suggested that (while that obviously would be considered) the bigger consideration would be the matter of the precedent set by assigning a dollar value in terms of future settlements. Perhaps TPL/T&T would consider $50M total/aggregate from the J2.5/ARM would offset the Markman risk. But what precedent would that set for the future - beyond the instant litigation? $12.5M per pop? Impressive, but not THAT impressive, and certainly not the kind of dollars most of us anticipate/hope for. THAT, IMO, would be the more compelling consideration by TPL/T&T, not just the instant case, but THE FUTURE.

The funny thing about the debate-gone-haywire with Ron was that we were very close to total agreement. Yes, settlement for really big bucks after a favorable Markman would probably be the best possible outcome. But I opine that settlement NOW for really big bucks would be the second best outcome. As I understand it, he believes that it would be better to get summary judgment and proceed with jury determination of damages as a "second best" outcome. I disagree. Uncertainty would remain, time would pass. I'm sure his hope would be for the jury to award huge damages, the court direct treble damages. But, again, uncertainty would remain, and we have no assurance of what the jury might award, or whether the court would assess treble damages.

Big bucks speak louder than any words. A clear, simple message that anyone can understand (without dealing with the nuances of litigation).

Sorry that I drifted into the prior debate with Ron, but it hit right on the essence of your post. And I hold no grudge against Ron, as I'm certain he didn't intend his response to me to be taken as so belittling. But consider offering an opinion, however poorly stated, having it being declared laughable (in the subject line), being directed to HIS opinion, and then toild to "chill" by a respected member of this forum. Not nice. But, again, probably not intentional to the degree it was perceived.

I welcome further debate on the "what would be best", though the debate is somewhat fruitless because what will happen is what will happen. Or, as an astute member opines "We shall see".

And as I opine, I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE